Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address

Dan Luedtke <maildanrl@googlemail.com> Mon, 07 May 2012 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <maildanrl@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E06321F84EB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LyfRlYAzyBE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D64A21F8427 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so6739113dac.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 May 2012 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wqOHvoCaeOkHH08QDZ5GlOjr1SOAxghxcE2K9xVkw/c=; b=blgmkPmwbiql9+tloayElLFbl+leBcLFL2GLH1agYPfiGwksBcEfWm1UFIwUzmRwG5 Cxo75Ae4TLYDg3B1om7TOqaVwml48rlnLg7fPAnYHQwKwNAbgCX5alevTGGraQhL1fGH wSK6DjWmplVMvmVfwHWJ/4OWg+3uLv+lgaBWqn//LK0z5MsRrMLbWvd31loM7gh6olgC 1L2oKdTiWTKcAsOUM44OJIawcRlQm2ektVikYaRFSsBPsJ2ZVkpO4srPsUY5MfSwPrz2 2QxEpJCmi/kNWm6ikFhJ9mhRZOzdFdm6RFtNEhUhGgkFBco2LvtGeblb2acy0y2qtob3 Zauw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.200.74 with SMTP id jq10mr36879032pbc.66.1336412427987; Mon, 07 May 2012 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.52.37 with HTTP; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B5B70D9@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <20120506235919.66E7B206E4F1@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4FA77236.30109@gmail.com> <4FA77EC7.6000406@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B5B6560@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA0BC26723@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <113B5F7B-646A-4012-9F10-A994BFE39E8B@virtualized.org> <CAAfuxnKZCUMX+8qP_9p_rbs4g193gwwf1TvR5S5yLieb408eQw@mail.gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B5B70D9@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 19:40:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAfuxn+y9M60uRGNtWks8NueGa9nZSr10cK0GYKRUwfeX6Zqyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address
From: Dan Luedtke <maildanrl@googlemail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 17:40:29 -0000

Hello,

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> MUST NOT would seem to match the intent of the original
> RFCs which say:
> "   Routers must not forward any packets with link-local source or
>   destination addresses to other links."
Got it now, thanks :) Yes, weakening the requirements seems to be not
useful in this case.
I prefer MUST NOT, too.

Regards,
  Dan

-- 
Dan Luedtke
http://www.danrl.de